generate_image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether generation is synchronous or asynchronous (the presence of get_task as a sibling hints at polling), what happens on failure, cost/rate limits, or whether seed makes results deterministic. Only the size syntax hint is extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and model, with the size hint appended. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness reflects missing content rather than efficient coverage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the definition still lacks parameter semantics for seed and negative_prompt, async/polling behavior, and any differentiation from edit_image. For a four-parameter generation tool with no annotations, this is substantially incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four bare parameters. It explains the width*height syntax for size but says nothing about seed (e.g., reproducibility) or negative_prompt (what it suppresses), leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate an image') and names the backing model (qwen-image-3.0), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling edit_image, which is the main adjacent operation, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus edit_image or generate_video, nor on any prerequisites such as authentication or model availability. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Generate'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.